BEFORE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL COMPRISING OF

SOLE ARBITRATOR MR. SAIYAD URAJ ABBAS, ADVOCATE

CASE FILE REF. NO. XXXX/03-21.

IN THE MATTER OF:-

XXXXXXXXXXXX                                   : CLAIMANT

VERSUS

XXXXXXXXXXXX                         & ORS.      :RESPONDENTS

D.O.H.:-______ 2024

REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM FILED BY THE CLAIMANT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

That the present Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Claimant in reply to Statement of Defence filed by answering Respondents (hereinafter called as “Respondents”) to the Statement of Claim filed by the Claimant (“SoC”). It is stated that the Respondents have made libelous and slanderous allegations in their Statement of Defence (“SoD”) against the Claimant and the Claimant reserves the right to initiate the legal action as warranted under the law against the Claimant.

Without prejudice to the foregoing and without in any manner admitting any of the submissions, contentions and allegations made in the Statement of Defence by answering Respondents save and except those expressly admitted, the Claimant is tendering its Rejoinder to the Statement of Defence as under:-

1.       That the contents of para 1 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent denies each and even averment and/or submission made in the Statement of Claim which is contrary to and inconsistent with the averments made and facts stated in the present reply.

REPLY TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS :-

2.       That the contents of para 2 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the present claim is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such. It is further denied that the present claim as filed by the Claimant is the abuse of the process of law and as such liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3.       That the contents of para 3 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Respondent was using the Scheduled Property till XXXXXX, during XXXXX, number of Covid-19 cases started coming across the globe and  during XXXXX, the disease reached alarming levels of spread and severity and therefore W.H.O. declared the same as pandemic. It is further denied that the governmental restrictions remained for several months; therefore, the Respondent was no longer able to use the Scheduled Property in the purpose or manner envisaged under the Lease Deed. It is further denied that the Respondent terminated the Lease Deed by issuing Termination Notice dated XXXXXX invoking Clause 26 of the Lease Deed and the Respondent vacated the Scheduled Property on XXXXX itself.

4.       That the contents of para 4 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that since termination of Lease Deed, the Respondent has repeatedly requested the Claimant to return the Security Deposit of Rs.XXXXXX/- (hereinafter 'Security Deposit') which the Claimant is illegally holding to itself and is liable to refund to the Respondent. It is further denied that but, Claimant has illegally retained the Security Deposit till date. It is further denied that the present arbitral proceedings have been initiated by the Claimant merely as a counter blast to lawful demands to refund of Security Deposit made by the Respondent.

5.       That the contents of para 5 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Claimant is not only guilty of suppression of material facts but has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal to prevent the payment of legitimate dues of the Respondent. It is further denied that the Claimant has not approached the Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands; therefore, the Claim is liable to be dismissed for this ground alone.

6.       That the contents of para 6 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Claimant on one hand has been enjoying the possession and exclusive control of the Scheduled Property from XXXXX onwards and on other hand it is trying to seek rent and interest till XXXXX. It is further denied that the Claimant is thus legally estopped from claiming the rent for lock-in period.

7.       That the contents of para 7 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the claims made by the Claimant are imaginary without any cogent proof. It is further denied that the claimant seeking reliefs without any substance, proof and merit.

8.       That the contents of para 8 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Claimant has unlawfully impleaded MrXXXXXX and Mr. XXXXXXX Respondents in the present proceedings to harass the Respondent. It is further denied that Mr. Rishabh Telang and Mr. XXXXXXXX have no personal involvement in the matter, they do not have any personal liability. It is further denied that therefore, it is submitted that their names are liable to be deleted from the proceedings immediately.

REJOINDER TO PARAWISE REPLY:-

9.       That the contents of para 1 of the SoD, need no rejoinder and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

10.     That the contents of para 2 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

11.     That the contents of para 3 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

12.     That the contents of para 4 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

13.     That the contents of para 5 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that on XXXXX, the Respondent lawfully vacated the Scheduled Property, having duly informed the Claimant about the termination of the lease.

14.     That the contents of para 6 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent refused to accept the conditional and unlawful offers made by the Claimant. It is further denied that this clearly shows that the Respondent has maintained a uniform stand throughout the transactions.

15.     That the contents of para 7 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent is under no liability to pay any kind of rent or any other outstanding amount as claimed by the Claimant in para 07.

16.     That the contents of para 8 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent is not in breach of Lease Deed. It is further denied that the Respondent has no liability to pay any alleged outstanding amount as claimed by the Claimant in para 08. It is further denied that the Claimant has neither pleaded nor proved any damages to have been suffered by it, therefore, its claims are devoid of any legal or factual basis. It is further denied that as per clause 26 of the Lease Deed, the Respondent became free from liability to pay any rents upon the happening of the force majeure event. It is further denied that if the force majeure situation continues for a period of more than 3 months then the Lessee shall be entitled to terminate the lease deed at its own discretion without further obligation. It is further denied that the Respondent has lawfully terminated the lease by invoking Clause 26 of the Lease Deed.

17.     That the contents of para 9 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent is not liable to pay lock-in period rent in the factual matrix of the case.

18.     That the contents of para 10 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent is not liable to pay lock-in period rent in the factual matrix of the case. It is further denied that since the Claimant himself terminated the Lease Deed via Legal Notice dated XXXXXX, therefore, he is estopped from claiming rents after this date.

19.     That the contents of para 11 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent has not breached any terms of the Lease Deed. It is further denied that the Respondent does not have liability to pay any rents, as claimed. It is further denied that the termination of the Lease Deed is not unlawful but as per the terms and conditions agreed in the Lease Deed.

20.     That the contents of para 12 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

21.     That the contents of para 13 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Claimant that the conversion of the property into 'commercial' is permanent and the claimant will enjoy the same permanently. It is further denied that the Claimant has not got nature of property reconverted, therefore, the claims made by the Claimant are completely false and baseless.

22.     That the contents of para 14 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

23.     That the contents of para 15 of the SoD are reiterated and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

24.     That the contents of para 16 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

25.     That the contents of para 17 of the SoD are reiterated, hence need no reply and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

26.     That the contents of para 18 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

27.     That the contents of para 19 of the SoD are reiterated, hence need no reply and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

28.     That the contents of para 20 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

29.     That the contents of para 21 of the SoD are reiterated, hence need no reply and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

30.     That the contents of para 22 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Statement, of Claim filed by the Claimant is hopelessly bared by limitation. It is further denied that it also suffers from gross delay and latches, therefore, liable to dismissed on this ground alone.

31.     That the contents of para 23 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

32.     That the contents of para 32 of the SoD are wrong and denied and those of the corresponding paras of the SoC are reiterated as correct.

It is denied that the Claimant is not entitled to any claims for the reasons already set out in these pleadings. It is further denied that the Claimant is neither entitled for payment of rent for alleged lock in period of 24 months, nor entitled for payment of conversion charges. It is further denied that the Claimant is liable to refund of security deposit to the Respondent and also indemnify the Respondent for the losses suffered by it as per the Counter Claim being filed by the Respondent.

Prayer para of the Statement of Defence are absolutely wrong and specifically denied. The answering Respondents are not entitled to the relief claimed for.

Any allegation made in the Statement of Defence and are not specifically denied herein are absolutely wrong and specifically denied and its non specifically denial shall not be taken as an admission on the part of the Claimant.

P R A Y E R :-

          It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the relief may kindly be granted in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents as prayed in the main Claim petition, in the interest of justice, equity and circumstances of the case.

Pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

It is prayed accordingly.

DELHI                                                                 CLAIMANT

THROUGH

DATED:                                                                        XXXXXX

 (Advocate)

Counsel for Claimant.

Mob. No.xxxxxxxxxxxx

Email: xxxxxxxxxxxx

BEFORE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL COMPRISING OF

SOLE ARBITRATOR MR. SAIYAD URAJ ABBAS, ADVOCATE

CASE FILE REF. NO. XXXX/03-21.

IN THE MATTER OF:-

XXXXXXXXXXXX                                   : CLAIMANT

VERSUS

XXXXXXXXXXXX& ORS.  :RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of XXXXXXXXXXXX aged about ___ years, S/o Sh……………………. R/o ……………………, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1.       That I, the Claimant in the above noted case and am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

2.       That the contents of the said accompanying Rejoinder to the Statement of Defence drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the same have been read over and explained to me and the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit, which are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION :-

Verified at New Delhi on this ___, day of September, 2024, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of it is false thereof and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

                                                                    DEPONENT